UC-NRLF 


929      ageoftheYiie-chi 

1917  0  t     . 

MAIN     lo-bcythians 


by 


ivn-iwfcp   LAUFER,  Ph.D. 

Curator,  Department  of  Anthropology, 
Field  Museum  of  Natural  History 


\ 


]ee  Announcement  on  first  page  inside 


The  Language  of  the  Yiie-chi 
or  Indo-Scythians 

by  .   v       : 

BERTHOLD   LAUFER,  Ph.D. 


Curator,  Department  of  Anthropology, 
Field  Museum  of  Natural  History 


See  Announcement  on  first  page  inside 


TI fE  have  imported  from  Tokyo  a  font  of 
Chinese-Japanese  type,  consisting  of 
approximately  twenty  thousand  characters, 
and  are  prepared  to  handle,  with  the  com- 
petent assistance  of  a  Japanese  compositor, 
the  printing  of  books  and  other  publications 
requiring  the  use  of  these  characters. 

This  installation  was  made  at  the  sugges- 
tion of  Dr.  Berthold  Laufer,  Curator  of  An- 
thropology at  the  Field  Museum  of  Natural 
History,  and  the  following  pages  by  Dr.  Lau- 
fer show  the  type  as  adapted  for  sinological 
publications. 

We  solicit  especially  the  printing  of  books, 
magazines,  and  catalogues  of  libraries,  collec- 
tions, and  exhibitions. 

R.  R.  Donnelley  &  Sons  Company 

731  Plymouth  Court 
Chicago 


1 1 


A  NNO  UNCE  MENT 


The  Language  of  the  Yiie-chi 
or  Indo-Scythians 


by 


BERTHOLD  LAUFER,  Ph.D. 

Curator,  Department  of  Anthropology, 
Field  Museum  of  Natural  History 


CHICAGO 

R.   R.   DONNELLEY    tf   SONS    COMPANY 
1917 


FIFTY  COPIES  PRINTED 
FOR  THE  AUTHOR 


The  Language  of  the  Yiie-chi  or 
Indo-Scythians 

BY  BERTHOLD  LAUFER 

The  question  of  the  nationality  of  the  ancient  Yiie-Si  is  still  unsettled. 
It  is  known  that  KLAPROTH  first  classified  them  with  Tibetans,  but 
subsequently  became  converted  to  the  theory  of  their  Indo-European 
origin,  identifying  them  with  the  Goths.1  The  Pan-Turks  who  have 
done  so  much  mischief  to  the  history  of  Central  Asia  did  not  fail  to 
claim  the  Yiie-c"i  as  their  property.2  This  speculation  is  exploded  not 
only  by  the  very  remains  of  the  Yiie-ci  language  itself,  but  also  by  the 
formal  statement  of  the  Chinese  annalists  to  the  effect  that  the  Yue-c"i 
were  different  from  the  Hiufi-nu;  they  belonged  to  the  group  of  Hu, 
that  is,  Iranians.3  Most  writers  on  the  Yiie-ci  (and  there  is  a  goodly 
number  of  them)  did  not  commit  themselves  to  any  opinion  as  to  the 
ethnical  position  of  the  tribe.4  Nationality  is  based  on  language:  I 
propose  to  examine  the  few  remains  of  the  ancient  Yue-&  language 
(that  is,  in  times  prior  to  the  foundation  of  the  Indo-Scythian  empire) 
preserved  to  us  in  the  records  of  the  Chinese  and  to  offer  some  con- 
clusions with  regard  to  the  position  of  their  language. 

When  in  A.D.  87  the  king  of  the  Yiie-ci  asked  for  a  Chinese  princess 
in  marriage,  he  sent  as  gift  to  the  Emperor  Can  of  the  Han  dynasty 
precious  jewels  and  two  kinds  of  animals  hitherto  unknown  to  the 
Chinese,  Si  ("lion")  and  fu-pa.5  It  is  a  common  experience  that  the 

1  Tableaux  historiques  de  1'Asie,  pp.  132,  287-289.  It  is  regrettable  that 
F.  JUSTI  in  his  history  of  Iran  (Grundriss,  Vol.  II,  p.  489)  still  speaks  of  "the  Tibetan 
Yiie-ci  or  Tochar,"  and  that  even  to  E.  H.  MINNS  (Scythians  and  Greeks,  p.  no) 
they  "appear  rather  to  have  been  nomad  Tibetans."  Polyandry  is  not  ascribed  to 
the  Yiie-ci  in  any  document,  as  asserted  by  Minns.  The  Tibetan  hypothesis  has 
been  well  refuted  by  O.  FRANKE  (Zur  Kenntnis  der  Turkvolker  und  Skythen, 
pp.  25-27). 

2F.  HIRTH,  Nachworte,  p.  48;  H.  G.  RAWLINSON,  Bactria,  p.  128;  A.  STEIN, 
Khotan,  p.  50  ("the  Yiie-ci  probably  spoke  a  language  of  the  Turkl- Mongolian 
family"). 

3  Hou  Han  su,  Ch.  117,  p.  27  b. 

4  In  regard  to  the  older  theories,  which  are  all  defective  and  inaccep table,  see 
E.  SPECHT,  Journal  asiatique,  1883,  nov.-dec.,  p.  320;  it  is  superfluous  to  discuss 
these  anew  in  the  present  state  of  science. 

5  Hou  Han  su,  Ch.  127,  translated  by  E.  CHAVANNES,  T'oung  Pao,  1906,  p.  232. 


3676^.4. 


4  THE    kANGTJAGE    Otf*  THE   YUE-CHI    OR    INDO-SCYTHIANS 

Chinese,  whenever  foreign  products  were  brought  to  them  for  the  first 
time,  adopted  together  with  these  their  foreign  designations.  Thus 
it  is  in  the  present  case:  Si  andfu-pa  are  actual  words  received  from  the 
language  of  the  Yue-Si. 

1.  flip  and  subsequently  $$,  Si,  *§'i,  lion.     On  a  former  occasion  I 
remarked  that  this  word  originally  hailed  from  some  East-Iranian 
language  and  was  transmitted  to  China  through  the  medium  of  the 
Yue-Ci.1     This  opinion  should  now  be  modified  by  the  formula  that  the 
word  *s'i,  si  or  se,  actually  represents  a  Yiie-cl  word  with  the  meaning 
"lion,"  and  that  this  Yue-ci  word  is  closely  related  to  its   Iranian 
congeners. 

2.  $£  iHfu-pa,  *fu-bwa5,  fu-bwal,  fubal.     As  is  known,  this  word 
has  been  identified  by  A.  v.  GuxscHMiD2  with  Greek  (3ovf3d\ls  or  /3ofy3aXis,3 
but  he  has  merely  added  the  Greek  word  in  parenthesis  to  fu-pa  by 
way  of  explanation  without  discussing  the  philological  basis  of  the  case. 
First  of  all,  it  must  be  stated  that  *fubal  is  the  Yiie-Si  designation  of 
an  animal,  and  that  this  word  may  be  related  to  0ou/3aXts,  in  the  same 
manner  as  other  words  in  Indo-European  languages.     Certainly  *fubal 
is  not  a  Greek  loan-word  in  Yue-5i.     Moreover,  the  animal  of  the  Yiie-ci 
did  not  represent  the  same  species  as  the  bubalis  of  the  ancients,  as 
plainly  follows  from  a  close  comparison  of  the  classical  and  Chinese 
traditions.     The   bubalis   of   the   ancients   has  been  identified  with 
Bubalis  mauretanica  of  northern  Africa  with  long  tail  and  short,  lyre- 
shaped  antlers,  as  well  as  with  other  kinds  of  antelope.4    Aeschylus5 
is  the  first  author  to  speak  of  "the  young  bubalis  serving  as  food  to 
the    lion"     (KeovToxoprav    @ovpa\iv    veairepov).      Herodotus    (IV,     192) 
places  bubalis  among  the  animals  occurring  in  the  Libyan  desert,  and 
Polybius  (XII,  3,  §  5)  praises  their  beauty.6    The  point  of  interest  is 
that  in  the  opinion  of  the  ancients  the  lion  and  the  bubalis  were  arch- 
enemies; they  were  often  represented  jointly  on  engraved  gems.7    This 
notion  of  a  contest  between  the  two  creatures  may  have  been  prevalent 
also  in  the  minds  of  the  Yue-£i,  and  their  gift  to  the  Chinese  Court 

1  T'oung  Pao,  1916,  p.  81. 

2  Geschichte  Irans,  p.  140. 

3  Wrongly  written  by  him  /8ou/3a\os  (that  is,  Bos  sylvestris,  urochs). 

4  O.  KELLER,  Antike  Tierwelt,  Vol.  I,  p.  294. 
6  Fragm.  322  Nauck. 

6  See  further  ARISTOTLE,  Hist.  an.  (ed.  of  Aubert  and  Wimmer,  Vol.  I,  p.  64); 
AELIAN,  Hist,  an.,  xiv,  14;  PLINY,  vm,  15. 

7  IMHOOF-BLUMER  and  KELLER,  Tier-  und  Pflanzenbilder  auf    Miinzen  und 
Gemmen,  Plate  XVII,  43. 


THE  LANGUAGE  OF  THE  YUE-CHI  OR  INDO-SCYTHIANS  5 

savors  strongly  of  a  political  allegory  (the  weak  swallowed  by  the 
powerful).  Yet  the  *fubal  of  the  Yiie-ft  was  an  animal  different  from 
the  bubalis.  Certainly  the  Yiie-&  had  not  exported  it  from  northern 
Africa,  but  it  was  an  antelopine  species  indigenous  in  the  steppes  of 
Central  Asia.  According  to  the  Han  Annals,  the  fu-pa  occurred  in  the 
country  Wu-yi-san-li^-AJ^ljgl,1  and  together  with  lions  (or  a  lion)  in 
A.D.  87  was  also  sent  as  tribute  from  Parthia  $£  Jj,  (*An-sik,  Ar-sik), 
on  which  occasion  it  is  described  as  having  the  shape  of  a  lin  ($$>  but 
without  antlers.2  In  a  late  dictionary,  the  Er  ya  i  of  the  twelfth  cen- 
tury, the  fu-pa  is  defined  as  "resembling  a  stag,  and  being  provided  with 
a  long  tail  and  a  single  horn."  The  word  *fubal,  accordingly,  was  not 
only  Yue-c"i,  but  also  belonged  to  the  speech  of  the  Parthians.  Again, 
the  affinity  of  the  Yiie-ci  language  points  to  Iran. 

3.  Another  Yiie-ci  animal-name  is  handed  down,  not  in  the  official 
annals,  but  in  the  Hilan  cun  ki  &  ff*  ffi  written  by  Kuo  $|5  (his  personal 
name  is  unknown)  in  the  fifth  century  or  earlier.  This  is  the  Yue-c"i 
term  for  the  "ox,"  transcribed  in  Chinese  by  means  of  the  character 
]&  ki,  anciently  *g'iep.  The  text  of  the  Huan  cun  ki,  as  far  as  I  know, 
is  not  preserved,  and  we  have  to  rely  on  extracts  from  it  given  by  later 
writers.  The  fact  that  the  name  of  the  animal  was  ]&  is  guaranteed  by 
the  very  careful  work  T'ai  p'in  huan  yu  kiz  published  by  Yo  Si  fj|  _fe  in 
the  latter  part  of  the  tenth  century.  The  Chinese  ascribe  a  miracle  to 
this  peculiar  cattle-breed  of  the  Yiie-ci :  three  or  four  pounds  of  its  flesh 
may  be  sliced  off,  yet  the  wound  will  heal  in  the  course  of  a  day  (in  other 
texts,  on  the  following  day) ,  and  the  animal  is  then  restored  to  its  normal 
size.4  In  the  most  detailed  version  of  the  story  that  I  have  been  able  to 
trace5  it  is  added  under  the  name  of  the  Hilan  Zuh  ki,  "Chinese  who 

1  Regarded  by  CHAVANNES  (T'oung  Pao,  1904,  p.  555)  as  a  transcription  of 
Alexandria  (*U-yir-san-ri)  and  identified  with  Strabo's  Alexandria  in  Aria. 

2  Hou  Han  su,  Ch.  118,  p.  4  (see  CHAVANNES,  Toung  Pao,  1907,  p.  177);  repeated 
in  Tai  p'in  huan  yu  ki,  Ch.  184,  p.  6b. 

3  Ch.  80,  p.  7. 

4  Cf.,  for  instance,  Tai  p'in  yu  Ian,  Ch.  900,  p.  2b,  with  the  misprint  R  for  2&- 
As  will  be  seen  from  the  T'ai  p'in  huan  yu  ki  (I.  c.},  the  spurious  work  Po  wu  ci 
erroneously  ascribes  this  ox  to  the  district  Yue-sui  j$  fl|  in  Se-c'uan.     The  Pen 
ts'ao  kan  mu  (Ch.  51  A,  p. -7)  cites  the  "ox  of  the  Yiie-ci"  as  a  special  variety,  and 
simply  quotes  the  text  of  the  Huan  cun  ki,  but  without  giving  the  native  name. 
Some  texts  say  that  the  animal  occurs  in  the  country  of  the  Ta  Yue-ci  (Tai  p'in  yu 
Ian  writes  ^    ;£)  and  the  western  Hu  JR§  j9  (that  is,  Iranians),  others  omit  the 
latter  term.     Sun  Yin  5fc  US,  in  his  /  wu  ci  jfe  tify  ;£,  adopted  a  humane  attitude 
toward  the  story,  and  had  the  tail  ten  pounds  in  weight  of  the  Yue-ci  ox  cut  off  and 
restored. 

6  Tu  Su  tsi  ten,  sub  SJ.     Here  the  name  of  the  animal  is  given  as  0  Jfc,  "the 
ox  ki  of  the  day,"  with  reference  to  its  recuperative  powers  gained  in  a  day. 


6  THE  LANGUAGE  OF  THE  YUE-CHI  OR  INDO-SCYTHIANS 

entered  this  country  [Ta  Yue-Si]  saw  the  ox  without  being  aware  of  the 
fact  that  it  is  there  regarded  as  a  precious  rarity.  The  Chinese  said 
that  in  their  country  there  were  silkworms  the  size  of  a  finger,  feeding 
on  the  leaves  of  mulberry-trees  and  producing  silk  for  the  benefit  of  man, 
but  those  foreigners  would  not  believe  in  the  existence  of  silkworms." 

It  does  not  require  much  sagacity  to  recognize  in  the  transcription 
*g'iep,  g'iev  an  Indo-European  word  and  in  particular  one  of  Iranian 
characteristics, —  Avestan  gav-,  Middle  Persian  gav,  go,  New  Persian 
gav,  Armenian  kov,  Sanskrit  gdv-.  Above  all,  however,  the  Yue-ci 
form  agrees  closely,  also  in  its  vocalism,  with  Yazgulami  yew  ("taureau") 
from  *7awa,  recently  disclosed  by  R.  GAUTmox;1  Ossetian  gawd,  and 
Scythian  godi  (from  *gowdi) .  It  is  a  Scytho-Iranian  type  of  word. 

There  can  be  no  doubt,  either,  that  the  notion  of  the  decreasing  and 
increasing  bull  of  the  Yue-ft  answers  to  a  mythical  conception  of 
specifically  Iranian  type,  which  the  sober  and  prosaic  Chinese  were  of 
course  unable  to  grasp :  it  is  the  waxing  and  waning  of  the  moon  that  is 
symbolized  in  the  image  of  the  bull.2  Compare  Avestan  aevoddta  and 
gaotiQra. 

4-  flfl  °r  *ii$$  hi-hou,  *h'iep  (or  hep)-gou,  hiev-gou.  Title  of  the  five 
satraps  of  the  Yue-Si,  wrongly  read  yap-hau  by  HIRTHS  and  identified  by 
him  with  the  Turkish  title  ^  H  ye-hu,  *yab  (dzab,  sab)-gu.4  The  two 
titles,  however,  have  nothing  to  do  with  each  other.  The  title  hi-hou  is 


1  Notes  sur  le  Yazgoulami,   dialecte  iranien  des  confins  du  Pamir   (Journal 
asiatique,  1916,  mars-avril,  p.  264). 

2  Cf.  for  instance,  DARMESTETER,  Etudes  iraniennes,  Vol.  II,  p.  292;  L.  H.  Gray, 
Spiegel  Memorial  Volume,  pp.  160—168;  G.  HUSING,  Iranische  Uberlieferung,  pp. 
23~54- —  The  ox  appears  to  have  been  an  important  domestic  animal  among  the 
Yue-ci.     According  to  the  T'un  tien  j|j  Jfil,  written  by  Tu  Yu  /fi  Vk  from  A.D. 
766  to  80 1,  the  Great  Yiie-ci  availed  themselves  of  four-wheeled  carts   (unknown 
to  the  Chinese),  which  in  proportion  to  their  size  were  drawn  by  four,  six,  or  eight 
oxen. 

3  Nachworte,  p.  47.     The  foundation  of  this  reading  is  the  modern  Cantonese 
dialect,  but  it  is  erroneous  to  identify  the  latter  with  ancient  Chinese  (see  my  Sino- 
Iranica,  No.  1 1).     There  is  no  reason  to  assume  that  ^  ever  had  the  reading  *yap  in 
ancient  times;  yap  is  merely  a  development  peculiar  to  Cantonese.     The  fan-ts'ie 
of  the  character  in  question  is  indicated  in  K'an-hi  by  f£  ]&  and  &  Ri  the  sound 
being  ]$£»  that  is,  h'iep  or  hep.     Moreover,  Hirth's  identification  of  the  title  hi-hou 
with  ye-hu  is  entirely  arbitrary,  not  being  supported  by  any  Chinese  text.     If  the 
two  transcriptions,  which  phonetically  are  different,  were  intended  to  render  the 
same  foreign  word,  the  ancient  commentators  would  certainly  not  have  failed  to  call 
attention  to  it. 

4  Regarding  the  phonology  of  ye  cf .  PELLIOT,  Bull,  de  VEcole  fran$aise,  Vol.  IV, 
pp.  267-269. 


THE  LANGUAGE  OF  THE  YUE-CHI  OR  INDO-SCYTHIANS  7 

applied  by  the  Chinese  also  to  Hiuii-nu,  Wu-sun,  and  Sogdians.  There 
is  no  reason  to  assume  with  the  Turkomaniacs  that  it  should  be  of 
Turkish  origin:  the  Chinese  themselves  say  nothing  to  this  effect;  but 
if  the  term  is  equally  found  among  three  Scythian  or  Turanian  groups, 
compared  with  a  single  Turkish  tribe,  the  greater  probability  is  that 
the  title  is  of  Turanian  origin  and  a  Turanian  loan-word  in  Hiun-nu. 
In  my  opinion  the  word  itself  is  of  Scythian  origin,  the  first  element 
being  connected  with  Armenian  $ahap,  from  Iranian  *sarhap,  Sahrap 
(Old  Persian  xsaQrapdvan,  o-arpdTnjs).1  Again,  we  observe  the  peculiar 
vocalism  of  Ytie-c'i :  the  vocalization  hiep  or  hiev,  compared  with  Iranian 
-hap,  corresponds  exactly  to  giev-  Iranian  gav  (No.  3). 

In  regard  to  the  second  element  gou,  I  have  not  yet  arrived  at  a 
positive  conclusion,  but  will  offer  merely  a  suggestion.  It  is  well 
known  that  Young-Avestan  gava  is  used  as  a  synonyme  of  Sogdiana, 
and  that  the  Pahlavi  translation  explains  this  word  by  da$t  ("plain"). 
DARMESTETER2  has  therefore  conceived  gava  as  a  noun  with  the  meaning 
"plain,"  and  compared  it  with  Gothic  gawi  ("county,  country"),  Old 
High  German  gewi,  gouwi,  Middle  High  German  gou,  gou.  The  Yue-6i 
word  gou  may  be  related  to  this  Germanic  word,  and  the  term  hap-gou 
may  signify  as  much  as  "county-prefect." 

5.  From  the  royal  names  Kaniska,  Huska,  Huviska,  Vasuska,  we 
may  well  infer  that  -ska  was  an  ending  peculiar  to  the  language  of  the 
I  Yue-ci.  S.  LEVIS  has  joined  to  these  forms  the  tribal  name  Turuska, 
which  in  fact  is  based  on  the  name  "Turk,"  but  also  serves  for  the 
designation  of  the  Kusana  or  Indo-Scythians.  In  1896  I  indicated  from 
the  Mahavyutpatti  the  Sanskrit-Tibetan  term  turuska  or  turuka  for 
the  designation  of  frankincense  (Gummi  olibanum  or  Thus  orientate). 
The  Pen  ts'ao  kan  mu  gives  Sanskrit  turuskam  as  a  synonyme  of  su-ho 
("storax"),  but  evidently  a  confusion  with  frankincense  has  here  arisen.4 
Turuska,  however,  does  not  mean,  as  believed  by  RHYS  DAVIDS, 
"Turkish  incense,"5  but  "incense  of  the  Indo-Scythians."  In  the 
chapter  Zui  yin  f  u  Jj§  |g  |H  of  the  Sun  su  it  is  on  record  that  in  A.D.  458 
the  country  Yue-Si  ^  j£  sent  as  tribute  divine  incense  f$  §,  which 

1  HUBSCHMANN,  Armenische  Grammatik,  Vol.  I,  p.  208;  cf.  also  the  note  of 
ANDREAS  in  A.  Christensen,  L'Empire  des  Sassanides,  p.  113. 

2  Le  Zend-Avesta,  Vol.  II,  p.  7. 

3  Journal  asiatique,  1897,  janv.-fe"vr.,  p.  u. 

4  PELLIOT,  Toung  Pao,  1912,  p.  478. 

6  See  PELLIOT,  Journal  asiatique,  1914,  sept.-oct.,  p.  418.  As  to  tarukkha,  the 
Pali  equivalent  for  turuska,  adopted  by  Rhys  Davids,  it  should  be  remarked  that 
A.  WEBER  (Abh.  B.  Ak.,  1871,  p.  85)  had  already  explained  turuska  from  *turukhka. 


8  THE  LANGUAGE  OF  THE  YUE-CHI  OR  INDO-SCYTHIANS 

was  examined  by  the  Emperor  Hiao  Wu  ^  jf£.  It  had  the  appearance 
of  swallow-eggs,  and  there  were  three  lumps  altogether,  in  size  resembling 
a  jujube.  The  emperor  refused  to  burn  it,  and  had  it  transferred  to 
the  treasury.  Subsequently  an  epidemic  broke  out  in  the  capital 
t 'aii-nan.  The  officials  were  infected  and  requested  the  emperor  to 
burn  a  lump  of  the  precious  incense  in  order  to  ward  off  the  pestilence. 
The  emperor  then  burned  it,  whereby  those  sick  in  the  palace  were 
relieved.  At  a  distance  of  a  hundred  li  around  t'an-nan,  the  odor  of 
this  incense  was  perceptible,  and  even  after  nine  months,  had  not  yet 
gone.  Hence  Chinese  writers  on  incense  have  established  the  term 
"Yue-&  incense"  ft  ^  ^f.1  It  follows  from  this  story  that  only  real 
frankincense  can  be  involved.  The  ending  -ska  certainly  is  not  Turkish, 
but  Scytho-Iranian. 

6.  The  tribal  name  Yue-Si  has  been  much  discussed,  but  a  pho- 
netically correct  restoration  has  not  yet  been  secured.  The  name  in 
the  writing  ft  j£  appears  in  the  first  part  of  the  second  century  B.C., 
and  probably  was  first  committed  to  writing  in  the  memoranda  and 
documents  of  General  Can  K'ien  himself.  We  are  confronted,  accord- 
ingly, with  the  transcription  of  a  foreign  name  attempted  in  the  early 
Han  period;  and,  as  is  well  known,  we  are  practically  ignorant  of  what 
the  phonetic  condition  of  the  Chinese  language  was  in  that  era.  The 
philological  science  of  the  Chinese  permits  us  to  restore  the  structure 
of  words  to  the  speech  of  the  T'afi  period,  but  beyond  this  we  tread  upon 
unsafe  ground.  Yet  there  is  hope  that  the  progress  of  comparative 
Indo-Chinese  philology  will  also  reveal  to  us  some  day  the  sounds  of 
the  language  of  the  Han.  In  view  of  this  state  of  affairs  it  behooves  us 
the  more  to  proceed  cautiously  and  to  heed  all  available  data  in  the 
attempt  to  reconstruct  the  name  by  which  the  Yue-6i  designated  their 
nation.  Especially  Chinese  comment  bearing  on  it  must  not  be  taken 
lightly,  as  was  done  by  A.  v.  SxAEL-HoLSTEiN.2  Unfortunately  the 

lHian  p'u  ^  HJ  by  Hun  C'u  j*  £  of  the  Sun  period,  p.  lib  (ed.  of  Tan 
Sun  ts'un  $u);  Min  hian  p'u  fa  ^  fjf,  cited  in  Pien  tse  lei  pien,  Ch.  7,  p.  6b. 

2  The  speculations  of  A.  v.  STAEL-HOLSTEIN  (SPAW,  1914,  pp.  643-650  and 
repeated  in  JRAS,  1914,  p.  754)  are  entirely  inadmissible.  He  has  a  rather  com- 
fortable method  of  discarding  any  evidence  that  is  opposed  to  his  preconceived  theory 
of  the  identity  of  Jf  J3Q  with  his  artificial  *Kusi,  alleged  to  be  the  nominative  singular 
of  Kusa.  In  order  to  suit  the  purpose  of  this  fantasy,  the  reading  ci  jj£  for  Si  de- 
manded by  the  Chinese  philologists  must  be  senselessly  sacrificed:  it  is  branded 
as  "unauthoritative,"  while  Wylie  is  heralded  as  an  "authority,"  for  he  consistently 
transcribes  Yue-she.  In  one  of  the  old  dialects,  according  to  Stael-Holstein,  ft  j£ 
was  pronounced  Gur-si  or  Kur-si  (again  on  p.  650:  Kusi).  The  authority  of  Yen 
Si-ku  in  matters  of  Chinese  philology  is  still  to  be  regarded  at  least  as  high  as  that  of 
Wylie  and  Stael-Holstein.  In  favor  of  his  theory  the  data  of  Chinese  history  must 


THE  LANGUAGE  OF  THE  YUE-CHI  OR  INDO-SCYTHIANS  9 

ancient  commentators,  while  they  give  us  positive  information  as  to  the 
phonetic  value  of  the  second  element,  fail  to  enlighten  us  on  the  first 
part.  There  is,  however,  a  full  interpretation  of  the  name  in  a  work  of 
mediaeval  date,  which  has  been  overlooked  by  previous  writers.  Yo  Si 
*H  jfe,  author  of  the  Tai  p'in  huan  yu  kil  in  the  latter  part  of  the  tenth 
century,  explains  the  pronunciation  of  ^  j£  by  means  of  the  characters 
$J  ;£;  that  is,  *2uk-&  or  *n'iuk-^i  (d'i).  This,  of  course,  is  striking, 
since  the  character  ^  was  anciently  possessed  of  a  final  jlgntal,  but 
never  of  a  final  guttural.  Yo  Si  adduces  no  source  or  authority  for  his 
comment,  but  as  he  proves  himself  well  informed  and  appears  to  have 
utilized  original  documents  of  the  T'afi  period,  he  may  have  derived 
this  suggestion  from  a  T'an  source.  The  idea  underlying  his  explana- 
tion is  that  the  character  is  not  taken  by  him  as  the  classifier  73  ('moon'), 
but  as  the  classifier  130  $J,  which  is  written  also  with  a  variant  ft 
(somewhat  different  in  shape  from  ft  'moon')  that  appears  in  combina- 
tions with  this  classifier.  It  is  difficult  to  believe  that,  if  right  from  the 
beginning  the  character  ft  of  Yue-Si  should  have  conveyed  the  phonetic 
*2uk  or  *n'iuk,  the  ancient  commentators  should  not  have  drawn 
attention  to  this  anomaly.  The  opinion  of  Yo  Si  leads  us  nowhere,  but 
it  merits  to  be  kept  in  mind. 

The  direction  of  the  commentators  is  that  the  second  element  j£ 
'Si  should  be  read  ^  ci,2  and  later  works  have  indeed  substituted  this 
character  for  the  former.3  The  fact  that  the  verdict  of  these  old 
philologists  is  not  arbitrary,  as  arbitrarily  asserted  by  A.  v.  Stael- 
Holstein,  is  plainly  to  be  seen  from  other  names,  for  instance,  the 
transcription  fl  jg  yen-£i,  designating  the  queen  of  the  Hiun-nu,  where 


be  discredited  and  turned  upside  down.  It  is  perfectly  obvious,  however,  that  the 
two  names  Yiie-ci  and  Kusana,  both  of  which  were  known  to  the  Chinese,  are  by  no 
means  etymologically  interrelated,  but  thoroughly  independent.  Kusana  was 
known  to  the  Chinese  in  the  form  jpf  |f  *Kwi-san,  and  they  were  aware  of  the  fact 
that  *Kwi-san  was  one  of  five  satrapies  or  principalities,  and  that  j£  J£  if  K'iu- 
tsiu-k'io  (Kuzulakadphises;  regarding  the  Chinese  transcription  see  PELLIOT, 
Journal  asiatique,  1914,  sept.-oct.,  p.  401),  after  the  subjection  of  the  four  other 
satrapies,  established  himself  as  king  of  *Kwi-san.  Kusana,  as  pointed  out  by 
F.  W.  THOMAS  (JRAS,  1906,  p.  203)  is  not  a  tribal  name,  but  a  family  or  dynastic 
title;  otherwise  we  should  not  have  an  Indian  inscription  describing  Kaniska  as 
"propagator  of  the  Kushan  stock."  See  also  J.  MARQUART,  Chronologic  der  alttur- 
kischen  Inschriften,  p.  59. 

1  Ch.  184,  p.  8. 

2  Ts'ien  Han  su,  Ch.  61,  p.  I;  Hou  Han  Su,  Ch.  118,  p.  5. 

8  The  writing  ft   j£  appears  in  a  document  from  Niya  (CHAVANNES,  in  Stein, 
Khotan,  p.  540). 


io          THE  LANGUAGE  OF  THE  YUE-CHI  OR  INDO-SCYTHIANS 

Yen  Si-ku  clearly  formulates  the  rule  that  anciently  the  character  j£ 
had  the  sound  ti  (flf  &  ^  S)-1 

This  verdict  cannot  be  overruled  in  favor  of  any  hypothesis  to  be 
attached  to  the  name  Yue-Si.  Likewise  in  the  name  of  the  district 
Jjj$  j£,  U  is  to  be  pronounced  &'.  The  question  arises,  however,  as  to 
how  the  character  ;£  was  articulated  in  early  times.  The  opinion  of 
KLAPROTH,  who  adopted  the  reading  Yue-ti,  that  t  may  often  be  replaced 
by  £,  cannot  be  set  aside  so  completely,  as  has  been  done  by  O.  FRANKED 
save  that  Klaproth  did  not  express  himself  very  clearly;  he  doubtless 
meant  to  say  that  palatal  t  or  tS  may  develop  from  dental  t;  and  this,  in 
fact,  is  a  common  phenomenon  in  Indo-Chinese.  Moreover,  it  is  justly 
emphasized  by  PELLIOTS  that  the  small  dash  differentiating  at  present 
the  symbol  &  tiirom  j£  is  a  comparatively  recent  affair,  so  that  formerly 
the  latter  character  might  have  been  read  Si  as  well  as  ti.  Pelliot  is 
further  right  in  concluding  that  under  the  Former  Han  the  character  j£ 
was  sounded  with  a  dental  initial  more  or  less  palatalized  (mouille) ,  but 
not  with  a  palatal  and  still  less  with  a  fricative.  As  Wan  C'uii  offers 
the  variant  J|f  Jt  Yen-t'i  in  lieu  of  ffl  j£  Yen-ci,  and  as  M  answers  to  an 
ancient  *di,  there  is  good  reason  to  assume  that  also  j£  and  likewise  ;£ 
were  at  that  period  articulated  d'i,  di,  or  &'.4  Thus  there  is  also  reason 
to  believe  that  this  element  -di  or  -ti  was  assimilated  to  the  final  dental 

1  The  restoration  of  the  transcription  yen- Si  presents  a  complex  problem,  as  the 
commentators  offer  various  means  of  reconstructing  the  prototype.     The  Si  ki  so 
yin  states  that  yen-ci  should  be  read  jljf  jj  *had-di  or  *hat-ti,  which  would  indeed 
lead  to  Turkish  xatun  (qatun,  khaturi).     In  ancient  times  this  word  had  several 
phonetic  variants:  we  have  in  T'u-kiie  *kahatun  "fif  jf|  *jfr  (k'o-ho-tun)  and  *katun 
~pf  ^  (k'o-tun),  in  T'u-yu-hun  *katsun  '$£•  Jfl  (k*o-tsun),  and  in  T'o-pa  *kasun 
"pjf  J£  (k'o-sun).     It  seems  to  me  that  the  Hiun-nu  word  *haddi  ( =  *haddun)  repre- 
sents the  primeval  form,  and  that  *katsun  and  *kasun  are  subsequent  developments. 
It  is  difficult  to  see,  however,  why  the  Chinese  wrote  yen,  if  the  sound  phenomenon 
had  was  intended;  but  whatever  the  basis  of  this  identification  may  be,  there  can  be 
no  doubt  of  the  existence  of  the  Hiun-nu  word  *had-di  itself.     It  is  obvious  that 
Yen  Si-ku  visualized  a  different  term  of  the  Hiun-nu  language  when  (Ts'ien  Han  su, 
Ch.  94  A,  p.  5)  he  defines  the  fan-ts'ie  of  yen  by  means  of  j^  ^  (yien).     It  is  singular 
that  K.  SHIRATORI  (Sprache  des  Hiung-nu  Stammes,  p.  4),  in  dealing  with  this 
word,  does  not  heed  the  Chinese  indications,  although  he  quotes  them,  and  identifies 
the  word  with  Uigur  obeli  or  eoli,  which  in  my  opinion  is  impossible. 

2  Zur  Kenntnis  der  Turkvolker,  pp.  22-23.     The  variant  Jj  does  not  occur  quite 
so  rarely,  as  assumed  by  Franke.     It  is  employed  in  K'an-hi's  Dictionary,  and  may 
be  seen  in  the  Su  kien  %jg  fj£  edited  by  Kuo  Yun-t'ao  Jfl  jfc  J§  in  1236  (Ch.  9,  p.  3; 
ed.  of  Sou  San  ko  ts'un  su).     At  any  rate  j£  is  merely  a  graphic,  not  a  phonetic 
variant. 

8  Journal  asiatigue,  1912,  juillet-aout,  p.  169. 

4  See  also  PELLIOT,  Bull,  de  VEcole  frangaise,  Vol.  V,  p.  428. 


THE  LANGUAGE  OF  THE  YUE-CHI  OR  INDO-SCYTHIANS          n 

of  the  first  part,  ^  ,  and  that  this  final  may  have  been  not  a  surd,  but  a 
sonant.  In  the  same  manner  as  in  Tibetan,  it  will  be  shown  that  also 
in  Chinese  the  final  explosives  were  originally  all  sonants  (partially  also 
liquids) . 

The  ancient  phonetic  formation  of  ^J  is  somewhat  complex  and  very 
far  from  being  such  a  simple  affair  as  get,  as  confidently  asserted  by 
former  sinologues,  in  order  to  fall  into  the  trap  of  the  Getae  and  Mas- 
sagetae.  The  original  initial  was  not  a  guttural  sonant,  but  the  gut- 
tural nasal  n,  which  is  plainly  indicated  by  thefan-ts'ie  &  §£  (*ni  k'iud) 
and  the  sound  equivalent  (J[,  which,  in  the  same  manner  as  ^f ,  still  has 
in  Sino-Annamese  the  pronunciation  nilet.  Further,  this  initial  n  was 
palatalized  (mouille)  and  labialized  (provided  with  so-called  ho-k'ou 
fe  P);  that  is,  phonetically  written,  *ii'wiet  or  n'wied,  n'wieS.1 

The  initial  n  seems  to  have  had  a  tendency  to  develop  into  g  during 
the  T'an  period.  In  an  Uigur  Sutra  the  name  Yue-&  is  said  to  be  tran- 
scribed Kitsi  or  Ketsi.2  Of  course,  this  transcription  made  after  a 
Chinese  mode  of  articulating  the  term  in  the  T'aii  period  (provided  the 
identification  were  correct,  which  is  doubtful)  would  have  no  absolute 
value  for  the  restoration  of  the  ancient  form  of  the  name  which  makes 
its  debut  some  eight  hundred  years  earlier.  The  fact  remains  that  initial 
n  (now  y)  generally  corresponds  to  g  in  the  transcriptions  made  in  the 
age  of  the  T'aii;3  and  if  the  transcription  Yiie-ci  had  originated  in  that 
period,  we  should  be  perfectly  justified  in  restoring  it  to  a  form  with 
initial  g.  But  we  must  not  lose  sight  of  the  fact  that  the  transcription 
was  made  early  in  the  second  century  B.C.  under  the  Han;  and  that  the 
same  rules  then  prevailed  as  tinder  the  T'an,  no  one  can  affirm.  The 
greater  probability  is  that  phonetic  conditions  were  then  somewhat 
different  and  perhaps  more  complicated  than  in  mediaeval  times.  In 
Iranian  and  Scythian  names  we  have  always  to  reckon  with  double 


1  In  this  correct  form  it  is  transcribed,  for  instance,  by  H.  MASPERO,  Etudes  sur 
la  phonetique  historique  de  la  langue  annamite,  p.  94.     See  also  PELLIOT,  Bull,  de 
I'Ecole  frangaise,  Vol.  V,  p.  443.  The  ho-k'ou  is  still  preserved  in  Fu-kien  nwok  and 
Japanese  gwatsu.     It  is  only  through  this  ho-k'ou  that  the  utilization  of  ^f  in  the 
transcriptions  of  Sanskrit  for  vit  and  vut  becomes  intelligible  (see,  for  instance, 
examples  in  VOLPICELLI,  Prononciation  ancienne  du  chinois,  p.  179;  and  SCHLEGEL, 
Secret  of  the  Chinese  Method,  p.  98).     Concerning  the  use  of  ^j  in  the  transcription 
of  an  Iranian  word  see  the  writer's  Sino-Iranica,  No.  18. 

2  According  to  F.  W.  K.  MILLER,  Uigurica,  p.  15;  but  according  to  PELLIOT 
(Traite"  manicheen,  p.  29),  the  Chinese  equivalent  corresponding  to  Kitsi  is  the  name 
g|  jf*  *Ni-tsin  (Yi-tsin). 

3  Examples   may  be  seen  in    CHAVANNES   and    PELLIOT,    Traite"    maniche"en, 
pp.  29,  42. 


12          THE  LANGUAGE  OF  THE  YUE-CHI  OR  INDO-SCYTHIANS 

consonants  which  it  was  difficult  for  Chinese  to  reproduce.  From  my 
Sino-Iranica  it  will  be  seen  that  Chinese  initial  5  and  £  may  correspond 
to  Iranian  xs  and  xLl  A  somewhat  vacillating  initial  as  that  of  $ 
indicates  very  well  that  it  should  answer  to  a  combination  of  foreign 
sounds  unfamiliar  to  a  Chinese  ear.  This  assumption  being  made,  there 
are  two  hypothetical  reconstructions  possible:  *n'wied-di  would  lead 
either  to  *aii'wied-di  or  to  *sgwied-di.  The  latter  is  the  more  probable 
one,  and  bears  all  the  characteristics  of  a  Scytho-Iranian  name.  It 
±  comes  very  near  to  the  Suguda  of  the  Old  Persian  inscriptions  (Avestan 
i~l  f^V  Su^ySa),  the  name  of  the  Sogdoi  or  Sogdians.  I  do  not  mean  to  say 
that  the  two  names  are  physically  identical,  but  only  that  there  is  a 
linguistic  relationship  between  the  two. 

As  regards  the  element  di  (d'i,  or  eventually  even  ti),  I  hold  that 
it  should  be  conceived  as  the  ending  of  the  plural,  and  that  the  plural 
suffix  -di  is  on  a  par  with  the  plural-suffixes,  -ta  of  Ossetian,  -rat  of 
Scythian,  and  -t  or  -y-t  of  Sogdian  and  Yagnobi.2  The  identification 
of  the  name  Yue-c"i  with  that  of  the  Getae  and  Massagetae,  in  my 
opinion,  is  out  of  the  question.  Not  only  phonetic,  but  also  geo- 
graphical and  historical  reasons  run  counter  to  this  assumption.3  Also 
the  identification  with  'Icmot4  must  be  rejected,  likewise  any  alleged 
relation  of  the  name  to  that  of  the  Ye-t'a  (*Yep-dal,  Ebdal,  Abdal) 
or  Ephtalites.  The  latter,  however,  are  not  Huns,  as  wrongly  asserted 
by  SPECHT,  but  in  the  same  manner  as  the  Yue-c"i,  are  Indo-Europeans, 
that  is,  Scythic  Iranians.  Likewise  so  were  the  ancient  Wu-sun,  as  I 
hope  to  demonstrate  in  a  subsequent  article.  Turkistan,  before  being 
settled  by  Turki,  was  a  country  of  Iranians. 

O.  FRANKE5  has  justly  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  very  close 
relations  and  intermarriage  existed  between  the  Yue-ci  and  the  Sogdians 
(K'an-kii  0  Jg) ;  and  the  kings  of  Sogdiana  are  said  to  have  descended 
from  the  Yue-ci  and  to  have  gloried  in  this  extraction.  It  seems  to  me 


1  A  similar  phenomenon  obtains  in  the  Sanskrit  transcriptions:    for  instance, 
Ki-pin,  based  on  *Ki-spir  =  Ptolemy's  Kasparia.     In  the  same  manner,  the  Sino- 
Iranian  word  §if|  pin  ("a  fine  steel  imported  from  Persia")  is  based  on  Iranian  *spin 
(Sariqoli  spin,  Afgan  osplnah  or  ospanah,  Ossetian  afseindg,  "iron"). 

2  Cf .  W.  MILLER,  Sprache  der  Osseten,  p.  42 ;  J.  MARQUART,  Untersuchungen 
zur  Geschichte  von  Eran,  II,  pp.  77-79;  R.  GAUTHIOT,  Du  pluriel  persan  en  -ha 
(Mem.  Soc.  de  Linguistique  de  Paris,  Vol.  XX,  1916,  pp.  74-75). 

3  On  this  point  I  concur  with  the  opinion  of  MARQUART  (Eransahr,  p.  206). 
4ToMASCHEK,  Sogdiana,  SWA,  1877,  p.  159. 

•L.C..P.  67. 


THE  LANGUAGE  OF  THE  YUE-CHI  OR  INSO-SCYTHIANS          13 

that  the  cause  of  this  mutual  good  feeling  was  given  in  the  linguistic 
relationship  of  the  two  peoples.1 

When  Sieg  and  Siegling  published  their  memorable  study  of  one  of 
the  Indo-European  languages  rediscovered  from  ancient  manuscripts 
of  Turkistan,  they  styled  this  language  Tokharian  and  further  defined  it 
in  the  very  title  of  their  publication  as  "the  language  of  the  Indo- 
Scythians."2  It  has  been  recognized  long  ago  that  both  these  designa- 
tions are  hazardous.3  "Indo-Scythian"  is  out  of  the  question  as  a 

1  Regarding   Indo-Scythian   proper  names   see  F.  W.  THOMAS,  JRAS,   1906, 
pp.  204-216.     I  do  not  believe  that  f|f  Sie  (the  vice-roy  of  the  Yue-ci,  vanquished 
by  Pan  C'ao  in  A.D.  90)  represents  the  title  sdhi  (S.  L6vi,  Journal  asiatique,  1915, 
janv.-f<§vr.,  p.  86),  as  sie  answers  to  an  ancient  *zie.     I  take  the  liberty  of  calling 
attention  to  some  contradictions  in  the  history  of  the  Kushan  dynasty  of  India,  as    ' 
conceived  by  our  scholars,  and  Chinese  accounts  of  the  Yue-ci.     According  to 
V.  A.  SMITH  (Early  History  of  India,  3d  ed.,  1914,  p.  272),  the  reign  of  the  last 
Kushan  ruler,  VasudevS,"  terminated  according  to  the  chronology  now  tentatively 
adopted,  in  A.D.  178,  and  the  year  226  denotes  the  collapse  of  the  Kushan  power 
in  India  (p.  278).     The^tfe*  lio,  however,  informs  us  that  during  the  period  of  the 
Three  Kingdoms   (San  kuo,  A.D.  221-277)   Kashmir  (Ki-pin),  Bactria   (Ta-hia), 
Kabul  (Kao-fu)  and  India  (T'ien-cu)  were  all  subject  to  the  Great  Yiie-ci  (San  kuo 
U,  Wei  ci,  Ch.  30,  p.  12  b;  and  CHAVANNES'  translation,  T'oung  Pao,  1905,  pp.  538, 
539;  CHAVANNES  remarks,  "Thus,  in  the  middle  of  the  third  century,  the  power  of 
the  Kushan  kings,  was  at  its  climax."     See  also  J.  KENNEDY,  JRAS,  1913,  p.  1057, 
who  called  attention  to  the  text  of  the  Wei  lio).     Moreover,  we  have  in  the  Annals 
of  the  Wei  dynasty  (Wei  li,  Ch.  3,  p.  3)  the  record  of  an  embassy  sent  in  the  twelfth 
month  of  the  winter  of  the  fourth  year  of  the  period  T'ai-ho  J£  ^P  (A.D.  230)  by  the 
king  of  the  Great  Yiie-ci  called  $fc  PJ  Po-tiao,  *Pwa-div;  that  is,  Vasudeva.     Of   ' 
course,  this  Vasudeva  may  be  different  from  the  one  of  V.  A.  Smith,  but  the  Chinese 
text  shows  us  that  as  late  as  A.D.  230  at  least  the  Kushan  dynasty  was  still  in  power. 
According  to  Smith,  historical  material  for  the  third  century  is  completely  lacking 
in  India,  and  nothing  definite  is  recorded  concerning  the  dynasties  of  northern 
India,  excluding  the  Panjab,  during  that  period.     See  also  CHAVANNES,    T'oung 
Pao,  1904,  p.  489. 

2  E.  SIEG  and  W.  SIEGLING,  Tocharisch,  die  Sprache  der  Indoskythefi,  SPA, 
1908,  pp.  915-934.     Neither  the  determination  Tokharian  nor  Indo-Scythian  is  due 
to  these  authors,  but  to  F.  W.  K.  MULLER  (SPA,  1907,  p.  960).    S.  LEVI  always  shifts 
the  responsibility  on  Sieg  and  Siegling  (Journal  asiatique,  1911,  mai-juin,  p.  432;  and 
JRAS,  1914,  p.  959). 

3  Whereas  A.  MEILLET  has  determined  the  historical  position  of  "Tokharian" 
with  as  much  acumen  as  circumspect  scholarship,  without  committing  himself  to  any 
nomenclature  and  any  theory,  German  scholars  hastened  to  make  the  "Tokharians," 
whose  very  name  in  this  connection  is  not  yet  assured,  subservient  to  their  wild 
speculations  regarding  the  alleged  primeval  home  of  the  Indo-Europeans.     E.  MEYER 
(Geschichte  des  Altertums,  3d  ed.,  Vol.  I,  pt.  2,  pp.  892-893)  popularizes  Miiller's 
nomenclature,  which  he  accepts  without  restraint,  and  proclaims  that  the  old 
hypothesis  of  the  origin  of  the  Indo-Europeans  from  Asia  has  gained  considerably 
from  this  discovery.     The  question  of  the  "Tokharian"  language,  which  is  one  of 


14         THE  LANGUAGE  OF  THE  YUE-CHI  OR  INDO-SCYTHIANS 

label  for  so-called  Tokharian;  the  two  are  entirely  different  things.  This 
can  now  be  actually  demonstrated  by  referring  to  the  word  for  "ox." 
This  is  okso  in  so-called  Tokharian,  while,  as  we  have  seen,  it  is  g'iev 
or  gev  in  Yue-&  or  Indo-Scythian.  The  Tokharian  word,  accordingly, 
bears  a  strictly  European  character;  the  Yue-6i  word,  a  Scytho-Iranian 
character.  We  further  note  that  Yiie-cH  possesses  initial  and  final 
sonants,  which  are  lacking  in  Tokharian.  The  two  languages,  in 
consequence,  belong  to  two  sharply  distinct  groups  of  Indo-European 
types  of  speech.  Yue-ci  is  a  member  of  the  same  group  as  Scythian, 
Sogdian,  Ossetian,  and  Yagnobi. 


mediaeval  form,  has  nothing  to  do  with  this  problem.  Also  the  alleged  identity  of  the 
"Tokharian"  suffix  -asSiil  with  Hittite  -aSSti  (MEYER,  I.e.;  S.  FEIST,  Kultur  der 
Indogermanen,  p.  431)  must  be  rejected. 


U.C.  BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


RETURN  TO  the  circulation  desk  of  any 
University  of  California  Library 

or  to  the 

NORTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 
Bldg.  400,  Richmond  Field  Station 
University  of  California 
Richmond,  CA  94804-4698 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 

•  2-month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling 
(510)642-6753 

•  1-year  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing 
books  to  NRLF 

•  Renewals  and  recharges  may  be  made  4 
days  prior  to  due  date. 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 


JUL131998 


FEB122QQI 


12,000(11/95) 


